Log in/Register

Please log in or register to continue. Registration is free and requires only your email address.

Log in

Register

Emailrequired

PasswordrequiredRemember me?

Please enter your email address and click on the reset-password button. You'll receive an email shortly with a link to create a new password. If you have trouble finding this email, please check your spam folder.

Springtime for Fascism?

Donald Trump has been compared to a fascist, as has Vladimir Putin and a variety of demagogues and right-wing loudmouths in Europe. But the problem with terms like “fascism” or “Nazi” is that so many ignorant people have used them so often, in so many situations, that they have long ago lost any real significance.

NEW YORK – Are we seeing a new dawn of fascism? Many people are beginning to think so. Donald Trump has been compared to a fascist, as has Vladimir Putin and a variety of demagogues and right-wing loudmouths in Europe. The recent tide of authoritarian bluster has reached as far as the Philippines, whose president-elect, Rodrigo (“The Punisher”) Duterte, has vowed to toss suspected criminals into Manila Bay.

The problem with terms like “fascism” or “Nazi” is that so many ignorant people have used them so often, in so many situations, that they have long ago lost any real significance. Few still know firsthand what fascism actually meant. It has become a catch-all phrase for people or ideas we don't like.

Loose rhetoric has coarsened not only political debate, but historical memory, too. When a Republican politician compares US property taxes with the Holocaust, as one Senate candidate did in 2014, the mass murder of Jews is trivialized to the extent of becoming meaningless. The same is roughly true when Trump is compared to Hitler or Mussolini.

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

Registration is quick and easy and requires only your email address. If you already have an account with us, please log in. Or subscribe now for unlimited access.

I agree, we are misusing words without actually grasping their meanings.
We could start with one of the most used word "globalization" which we consider a man-made, mostly economic expression.
In truth "globalization" is part of the evolutionary process, creating a globally interconnected and interdependent humanity so humanity can integrate within the "globalized" cosmic natural system.

Our problem is that such a globally integrated and interdependent system requires selfless, mutually complementing cooperation which is in turn against, completely opposite to our inherently self-centered, self-justifying and greedy human nature.
Thus instinctively we want to escape globalization as soon as we understand what it means and what it requires from us.

This explains the recent tendency for disconnection, protectionism and isolationism which "populist" leaders can easily use, exploit.
They try drumming up, uniting ("fascio" also means bundle/connection) their nations by fear, by showing or inventing enemies people can unite against.

These are all instinctive reactions of our inherent nature signalling the end of our actual civilization cycle, leading to inevitable explosion.
Such vicious cycles, running into crisis, dead-ends then exploding and later restarting on the ruins of the previous one describe human history so far.

The question is if we passively, blindly continue our unconscious, instinctive evolution or we use our unique analytic mind to recognize the pattern and initiate the necessary self-changes.
We are capable of building true, selfless, mutually complementing cooperation above and despite our nature using the right method.
The true human being is the one that can rise above instinctive behavior taking control over one's self.
The choice is still ours before we sleepwalk into a global disaster.

Lots of good comments - thanks for that.
One word that I feel is misused in the article is the elite. This is a common conflation which tars many diverse groups of people when in fact there is only one elite that is the root of all the problems we face today.
It is the the cultural elite. It is not the scientific elite. It is not the educational elite.
The problem begins with the sociopathic oligarchs who rampage around Wall Street, around Corporate America, around Multi-national Corporations. It continues with the Think Tanks, which should be called Propaganda Factories.It continues with the Political Operatives and their focus groups who devise the words that confuse the voters to betray their own interests.
So, please rewrite your essay without the generic and false term elite, replacing it with GSOs (as in greedy sociopathic oligarchs).
I think you will find that the resulting intersection of corporatism and politics is indeed fascism.

Well, there's a certain point about Hitler that types like Buruma always gloss over -- especially with reference to today's right-wing populists:

Hitler was not simply a nationalist -- he was an imperialist.

Had Hitler simply been content running Germany it would have been very unpleasant for the Germans (and Jews in Germany in particular) but it wouldn't have made any difference to anyone else.

Hitler was no upholder of national sovereignty, because he obviously cared nothing about the national sovereignty of the nations he conquered.

By contrast, none of our current crop of right-wing populists (with the partial exception of Putin) are imperialists -- they are nearly all isolationists of one sort or another. Trump in particular wants to disengage with abroad. They are also all united by what they see as invasions of their nations by immigrants -- something that was never an issue for Hitler. (Wiemar Germany was not a magnet for immigrants).

Indeed, because of their urge to launch military offensives against various parts of the globe for reasons of dubious morality, makes Ian Buruma and his type open to accusations of acting like Hitler themselves.

But frankly, I think the comparisons to Hitler in either case are so overblown as to be ludicrous.

imbalanced fixation that ignores the thuggish "caudillos" of the Left that have been running roughshod across Latin America, from Hugo Chavez & his successor; Peronists & Kirchnerists in Argentina; Castros in Cuba, etc ... meanwhile, many darlings of the Left have tried to ensconce themselves as presidents-for-life, such as Danny Ortega (Ivo Morales failed in his attempt) ... all of these rule through avid nationalism & rapid socialism ... in all events, what is unfolding is the natural sequence of the internal & fatal contradictions of democracy driven by continuous efforts to water down constitutional constraints on the expansion of the State ...

As we endure the ceaseless political rhetoric surrounding our national budget and debt, I have come to the conclusion that we as a nation, have actually chosen to put ourselves in this quasi-bankrupt insolvent position.

There are a number of critical turning points where our political and business leadership chose the wrong path with our support. Here are some of the major wrong turns that occurred over the last 36 years.

In 1980 we adopted “supply side economics”, also known as “trickle down economics” and we adopted the philosophy that budgets never needed to be balanced.

The theory states that increasing the net wealth possessed by the economic elite generates the best stimulator of economic activity.

These wealth-owners will invest any marginal wealth-gain from tax cuts on things that increase “supply”—factories, new businesses, innovative goods and services, thus “Supply Side Economics”.

Belief in this economic heresy continues and many current candidates for public office actually advocate further tax cuts.

Because of this heretic belief, politically driven and popular tax cuts were put into place that were based on expanding our national debt from $907 Billion in 1980 to $3 Trillion in 1990 to $5 Trillion in 2000 to $10 Trillion in 2008 and $16 Trillion in 2012. These tax cuts continue unabated and are expected to drive our national debt to $21 Trillion by 2016 or a 24-fold increase since 1980.

We also entered diabolical free trade agreements with tax incentives that encouraged manufactured product imports and job exports. In 36 years we have managed to export over 60,000 factories and over 23 Million jobs. Our trade policy continues unabated.

We deregulated the financial sector and freed Wall Street to be “creative”. This permitted the destruction of $16 Trillion of our collective wealth and returned us to 1992 wealth levels nationally. Financial deregulation essentially continues unabated along with super-sized banker bonuses with no bankers in jail even though over $140 Billion has been paid in fines.

Following the 911 attacks, we committed over $4 Trillion (off-budget) to occupy Iraq and Afghanistan. Taxes were not imposed to finance the occupation. The occupation continues with no end in sight.

We implemented Medicare Drug Plan D at an incremental cost of $180 Billion a year. No taxes for this were imposed and drug companies were not required to negotiate prices with Medicare. This mismanaged program continues and is growing.

Student loans now total over $1 Trillion as our public and private universities and colleges took advantage of the easy money available to students for education. At UW Madison for example, resident undergraduate tuition in 1980 was $769, today it is $8592 or a 11-fold increase. Sadly, it was reported recently that a new retiree was having their Social Security check garnished to repay student loans over 30 years old.

So are we broke? Indeed we are. And we have clearly chosen to be.

Because of these major wrong turns we have also managed to concentrate wealth in the United States to levels not seen since 1929.

For example, the Walton family of Wal-Mart fame now controls more wealth than the poorest 40% of Americans combined. This was largely driven by the reduction in marginal corporate income tax rates.

In addition, Reuters reported July 22, 2012 that over $32 trillion in wealth is held in offshore tax havens. While this is a global estimate, it would be fair to suggest 50% or $16 Trillion as “American”. When people and corporations do not pay tax on foreign tax haven accounts, the rest of us have to make up for the loss or we simply must expand the National Debt.

American Corporations currently hold over $1.5 Trillion in profits offshore and are demanding to have taxes cut or eliminated on these profits before they are repatriated. “Negotiations” are taking place with our Congressional leaders as you read this.

The reduction in top personal marginal income tax rates has been anything except modest. Rates have been reduced from 70% in 1980 to 35% currently. As late as 1964 they were 91%. The average top marginal rate from 1915 to 2012 is 57.8%. We are operating at 60.6% of the 97-year average.

We did not stop there, our capital gains tax was reduced as well from 39.9% in 1978 to 15% currently. The 100-year average on capital gains is 26.9%. We are operating at 44% of the 100-year average.

In 2003 we also reduced the top marginal dividend tax rate from 35% to 15%. This is 25% of the 91-year average.

And to completely ensure we would never ever have a balanced budget, we reduced corporate income tax from 46% in 1980 to 35% today. The 100-year average on corporations is 46.7% and we are operating at 75% of the 100-year average.

We are attempting to have our $16 Trillion economy operate with top marginal tax rates at essentially 50% of the 100-year average for the republic!

It should come as no surprise that this entire tax cutting strategy is not working, as we have accumulated $19 Trillion in national debt, 20 Million unemployed and underemployed not to mention exploding state and local debt.

We currently enjoy the lowest marginal tax rates since 1929 when the top marginal tax rate was 24%. In 1932 we increased the top marginal tax rate from 25% to 63% and we began to climb out of the Great Depression.

The circumstances in 1928, just prior to the onset of the Great Depression, and today are strikingly similar. This should seriously concern every citizen in our Republic, but we seem blind to every warning sign our economy has provided.

The ceaseless political “job creator” rhetoric suggesting that “if we tax business and high-income individuals, jobs and growth will not be generated”, is simply untrue historically.

No mention of India and its candidates for the label of fascism -- Narendra Modi, his Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and affiliated organisations that champion jingoism and hatred for the other (Muslims, Christians, indigenous peoples...)?

You are right! The current govt. of Modi is the surrogate party of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh which was formed in 1925. It followed closely organizational methods and philosophy of Fascist party of Mussolini. It included cabals of saluting, teaching false history of , injecting hatred for Muslims etc. It is simply Facist. Most Indians have no sense of history and have no experience or knowledge of Facism.

Muslims of India are like Jews in the eyes of Nazis. That is why nearly 2000 Indian Muslims were butchered in Godhra riots by Hindu mobs. That was the time was the chief minister of Gujarath! Indians must hang their heads in shame for such barbarism.

Any comparison of Donald Trump to Hitler is completely overblown. Trump has no ideology at all, let alone Hitler's deranged program.

Rather, Trump reminds one of Mussolini. Both are narcissistic opportunists with a knack for demagoguery. Trump's program is just that the country just needs Leadership. It doesn't matter where it goes as long as it is being led, and as long Trump is the Leader, because in his view he is the smartest and toughest and most gorgeous candidate for the job. Like Mussolini, Trump just wants to Make This Country Great Again.

Both incite violence against opponents and outsiders. Trump is already working on his salute and loyalty oath. The Redcaps have not yet appeared in force outside rallies, but I'm guessing it's just a matter of time.

Is this guy seriously arguing that legistators in the US aren't in the pockets of the filthy rich? Is he really asserting that these elected elites and their filthy rich donors are acting in the best interests of the 99%

Comparisons to the fascist regimes of the past are not misplaced at all. Comparisons to Hitler may be. Hitler is an example of what may happen when the fascist virus takes over a major world power, which Germany was at the time and to some extent remains today. It is also an example of what may happen when a fascist leader becomes deranged with no limits on his power and the usual breaks on deranged behavior of political leaders dismantled. One should remember that Franco in Spain did not join WWII and died in the 1970-ies in his own bed. Mussolini might have died in his own bed as well had he not allowed himself to be drawn into WWII by Hitler. Coming back to contemporary times, Putin's Russia has already caused multiple wars that killed tens of thousands. His latest war displaced nearly 2 million people. Displaced is the contemporary, sanitized word. These people are refugees of war which was fought under the Hitlerian excuse of protecting ethnic minorities that were really not in danger, though perhaps politically dissatisfied at the turn of events in Kiev. Fascism breeds war, contempt for an individual whose sole role becomes a slave to ambitions of the state, and ultimately may lead to large and destructive wars in the nuclear world. The political methodology of fascism is inciting hatred of some other as means of controlling the masses. So, in summary, we need to recalibrate our language indeed, rather than not talk about fascism until it rises to the level of Hitler. Fascism is a well defined political method, which always leads to violence within the society and enslavement of an individual by the state, sometimes leads to intense violence within societies, and paves the way for horrendous wars.

History never repeats itself.... except in broad terms, like Fascism. What concerns me is that one concept that Hitler's Fascism totally made taboo for the past 70+ years is Eugenics (simply stated, a concept that some races or classes are genetically superior to the mass of humanity). If you look at the polarisation of wealth in countries in the West, particularly the US, the top 1% are totally 'interbreeding' in terms of the communities they create and the education institutions they put their offspring into. The next 5% in my experience (and I am one) invest most of our time and resources in getting our offspring into the same institutions so that they can get a step up into the disproportionately 'winner takes all' section of society that is emerging globally. If you are cynical, the top 1% will quickly realise that they can use 'Populist' politicians to prove that 'one person, one vote' in a democratic society requires a lot of over-ride mechanisms in the hands of the 1% to avoid some perceived Fascist disaster (e.g Trump being elected- they probably already control Hillary).....so they are now rallying around Trump. That is the new Fascism, I think.

thank you for the warning to use comparisons with the past in an oversimplyfied way.

I'd like to add the idea (which I think follows immediately from your piece) that the tension which leads to the abundant simplification comes from:
a) We want to learn from the past, so we would need to discuss the particularities in developments without generalizing descriptions as e.g. "fascist" etc., though general patterns need to be pointed out for orientation and hence might need an accepted overarching term.
b) The media-consumption by many rather appreciates short strong headlines over extensive discussions of the particular incidences, requiring simplification to raise awareness for big patterns. (I do not want to critisize this here, it is certainly impossible to follow the huge amount of information created every day, but it can't be avoided that this leads to demands to information-flow.)

Eventually, this sets the risk of loss of significance against the risk of sleep-walking, as added to the discussion in the comment by j. von Hettlingen below.

Your description of fascism is wrong because it uses the perspective of 1945 looking backward not the perspective of 1930 looking forward. Then everyone wanted a strong leader offering a bold solution to solve problems created by the old elites who had made World War I and depression. Some wanted the Social variety of Mussolini, National variety of Hitler, International from Stalin, provincial variety of Huey Long, etc. The opening for them was created by the failure of established leadership to do the hard work of solving complex problems. Political correctness today is the real source of neo-fascism because is substitutes liberal platitudes for solutions. Working people of Europe have a right to their own land and their Christian heritage, and "migrants" have no right to userp those rights. The tragedies of the Middle East and elsewhere are real tragedies but they are genuinely difficult problems with conflicting rights and a plenitude of wrongs. It is indeed spring time for neo-fascism because of platitudes like this piece.

Ian Buruma warns against seeing the rise of far-right populism as fascism or Nazism, because the inflationary use of this radical, totalitarian nationalism in the post-World War I Europe will only trivialise the harm it had done to humanity. He points out the problem with today's people being ignorant of history and not knowing "firsthand what fascism actually meant." The term has been used "so often, in so many situations, that they have long ago lost any real significance....It has become a catch-all phrase for people or ideas" people abhor.
The author is critical of "loose rhetoric" in recent years that "has coarsened not only political debate, but historical memory, too." A Republican politician compared "US property taxes with the Holocaust," rendering the "mass murder of Jews /trivial/ to the extent of becoming meaningless. The same is roughly true when Trump is compared to Hitler or Mussolini."
Buruma says we shouldn't be "distracted from the real dangers of modern demagoguery," but today's far-right populists - Trump; Putin; the Dutch party leader Geert Wilders; new Philippines president Rodrigo Duterte etc - aren't fascists or Nazis. "They may be repulsive, but they are not organizing uniformed storm troopers, building concentration camps, or calling for the corporate state. Putin comes closest, but even he is not Hitler."
Perhaps not! Yet today's "political bombast" harks back to "our darkest history" of the last century, "poking a monster that post-World War II generations hoped was dead but that we now know only lay dormant." It is useful to draw historical parallels to current development, as "obliviousness to the past could enable /the monster/ to be reawakened."
The author points out that the economic woes and the refugee crisis which have plunged our continent into political turmoil not seen since World War II, are real. Criticism of the EU with its "opacity" and its ineptitude to deal with mass immigration, "the duplicitousness and greed of Wall Street bankers.....the lack of concern for those hurt by economic globalization" is all justified.
Demagogues are opportunists, and don't "much care about....political correctness. " They - having "enough historical sense" - capitalise on public grievances, by "stoking hatred of minorities, fulminating against the press, stirring up the mob against intellectuals, financiers, or anyone who speaks more than one language," or someone who is familiar with and at ease in many different countries and cultures.
If "mainstream political parties" are "unwilling or unable to solve" widespread economic problems, "agitators" emerge and their supporters are quick to rally behind them. The "elites" - beneficiaries of globalisation - are being accused of betraying their ordinary fellow citizens. "Unpopular ethnic or religious minorities" are made scapegoats for their unemployment - taking a leaf out of "the enemies of liberal democracy in the 1930s."
The author says that today's "illiberal" demagogues and opportunistic politicians who "express themselves in this manner may not be fascists; but they certainly talk like them." Yet we should keep an eye on them, and avoid sleep walking into another disaster.

When the current model- democracy, has clearly failed, countries seek alternative models- whether in the present like China and Russia's Authoritarian Capitalism or from the past- like Fascism. The Washington Consensus is dead, long live what succeeds it.

This is correct, Dictators, Fascists, Nazis, etc. of the 21st Century have become much more sophisticated. They now became respectable, enjoying total immunity, huge tax free salaries or income, and very expensive perks, to state just a few examples and as a bonus they can get away with murder or multiple crimes without any punishment.

Buruma is right about the misuse of the term “Fascist” and “Nazis”: they are used not by its meaning, but as an insult.
It's nevertheless a pity that the same can be said about the term “populist”, that is used as a synonym of “dirty and bad, and scary”, just the way it goes for “Fascist” and “Nazis”.
And sorry, Fascism and Nazism were instead actually something new, never seen before, out of the tradition of any previous European political thinking.
And Buruma don't seem aware of the mechanisms which put Mussolini and/or Hitler in power. Were not been the masses of little people enchanted by the demagogue – the typical fixation of classical liberals. They were put in power by the classical-liberal or conservative elites. In Italy, Benedetto Croce ad Gaetano Salvemini supported the Mussolini Government even after the killing of Matteotti. And in Germany was Von Papen who pushed Hindenburg to appoint Hitler as chancellor. Nazism is short for “national-socialism”, and in 1934 Hitler had the SA, the Nazis movement, killed by the Army, because SA asserted the “nationalization of the Capital”, accordingly to the socialist component of the Nazi political manifesto. They were exterminated because they were disturbing the Hitler iron pact with the establishment, that Hitler itself was aware was vital for his own stay in power. This was the first mass murder by Hitler, but it didn't disturb those elites, who instead supported and made it.
And the Nazis and the Fascist were not all the same. There were non-racist Nazis, one of them was Von Stauffenberg, which was nevertheless not a good fellow, even if he tried to kill Hitler - in order to save Nazism, non to overthrow it. This is for the bad habit to identify Nazism whit anti-Hebraism. As to the Fascists, Perlasca never disowned is fascism, but everyone knows what he made. And he wasn't the only fascist who helped Jewish people to run away from persecution.
So please, do not disguise the huge responsibilities of the elites, mainly classical-liberals with a touch of conservatism.
This holds mainly today: what is happening is not responsibility of the so-called populists (who are all not the same): our beloved “European” elites are the responsible of the present state of affairs. Populist are only the sole available response, because the elites are unable – and don't even want - to find any way out.

Examining fascism in ideological terms results in definition slippery enough to make a point and start us off on some heavy thinking. As Umberto Eco semes to say, ideology is not the purpose of fascism. That which can be named is not the name? eh, but this isn't really good subject matter to be carrying up that mountain.

"Aggressive Reactionary Statism" works as a reasonable stand-in for me.

+0.75 points
Overall a very important central message -- the tendency to call anyone you don't like a fascist is foolish and dangerous for all the reasons described.

-0.25 point deduction:
Portraying the strata who benefit from corrupt aspects of the existing system, as "victims" of past fascists. Not really true. In the 1930s, existing financial and industrial power centers in the US and Europe were faced with the unpleasant (for them) choice of socialism or fascism, as the standard model was rejected after the economic crises between the wars. They made the clear decision that fascism would be the "least-worst" option, because socialism is more dangerous. Given the consequences, no sympathy, even if it was an "honest mistake". Sorry.

It wouldn't surprise me if a similar calculus is not taking place today.

It's more correct to speak about patriotism in Russia
Russia is a multi-national state with over 185 ethnic groups designated as nationalities, population of these groups varying enormously, from millions in the case of e.g. Russians and Tatars to under 10,000 in the case of Samis and Kets.
Among the 85 subjects which constitute Russia, there are 21 national republics (meant to be home to a specific ethnic minority), 5 autonomous okrugs (usually with substantial or predominant ethnic minority) and an autonomous oblast.

Yes, trump is a potential monster but it is liberal democracy that created him. The grievances that buoy trumps campaign are quite real and can't be addressed with more of the same old same. Trump sounds like he does because the underlying sentiment is one of deep anger just as it was in Germany pre ww2.

Who created Trump are the conservative idiots that like Hitler supporters are incapable of understanding the world they live in, to the point of putting their lives and the lives of the ones they love in the hands of such sinister characters.

Unfortunately they are too stupid to understand this, because the only things they understand are insults and simple words

You correctly describe the word facist as no longer meaningful. But then you start freely using another word suffering from a similar problem. The word populist is too general and can be used to describe anyone whose ideas you don't agree with but enjoys popular support.

Who is Nazis? There are, for example, the British supporters of the idea of ​​the superiority of the white race. They entered the old crematorium in Buchenwald concentration camp, where 50 thousand Jews were killed. On hooks that got on the photos taken by these people, once hung the bodyes. At this place they gave the Nazi salute. In his spare time, they are calling for the destruction of the non-white population and religious minorities. That fascists. They are not a right-wing.
The support of the immigration policy or protectionism is not means to be a Nazi. But the calling the person with whom you do not agree - a great way to reject the views of opponents and completely ignore his arguments.
"Words such as" fascist "," racist "," sexist, "," homophob "," Islamophob " is often used in the debate and come into use. A lot of new politicians called with help of these words now. However, instead of leave the political arena, they are in most cases remain and show that they enjoyed considerable support and do not deserve the insulting characteristics."

I think the readers of the essays here have a better understanding of the terms "fascism" and "national socialism" than Mr. Burma is giving us credit for. A government can fit the fascist template extremely well without building concentration camps or embracing antisemitism.

In any event, the Spring of fascism won't really arrive in the West, if it arrives at all, until it has worked its way through the Fall of today's tarnished Liberal Democracies (which are morphing into oligarchies and corporatocracies -- in many ways as distasteful as fascism, and certainly not "democratic"). And who knows what discontent the Winter will hold?

But with a serious effort, it may just be possible that the turn of the seasons will result in a resurrection of public trust in and a recommitment to democratic principles and process. That outcome is, I think, primarily in the hands of the young -- and that's one reason why the Sanders candidacy in the U.S., successful or not, has been so important: It seems to have awakened the young to the need for a revaluation of our democratic values and a redefinition of our understanding of "the common good."

Igor, fortunatly the money in the US comes in a majority from individuals that believe in freedom and equal oportunities, not from Counts and Barons like in Europe, so they tend to support also the defenders of the integrity of the country.

Fortunatly for us also, and unlike Europe, the Rednecks and Midwesterns (Germans) don't decide the future of the country which has allways been rulled by both West as East coast

The US has legalized corruption character. The presidential election - this place of business of multinational companies. The more money - the more likely to do own president, which should promote the interests of this business.

See also:

In the first year of his presidency, Donald Trump has consistently sold out the blue-collar, socially conservative whites who brought him to power, while pursuing policies to enrich his fellow plutocrats.

Sooner or later, Trump's core supporters will wake up to this fact, so it is worth asking how far he might go to keep them on his side.

A Saudi prince has been revealed to be the buyer of Leonardo da Vinci's "Salvator Mundi," for which he spent $450.3 million. Had he given the money to the poor, as the subject of the painting instructed another rich man, he could have restored eyesight to nine million people, or enabled 13 million families to grow 50% more food.

While many people believe that technological progress and job destruction are accelerating dramatically, there is no evidence of either trend. In reality, total factor productivity, the best summary measure of the pace of technical change, has been stagnating since 2005 in the US and across the advanced-country world.

The Bollywood film Padmavati has inspired heated debate, hysterical threats of violence, and a ban in four states governed by the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party – all before its release. The tolerance that once accompanied India’s remarkable diversity is wearing thin these days.

The Hungarian government has released the results of its "national consultation" on what it calls the "Soros Plan" to flood the country with Muslim migrants and refugees. But no such plan exists, only a taxpayer-funded propaganda campaign to help a corrupt administration deflect attention from its failure to fulfill Hungarians’ aspirations.

French President Emmanuel Macron wants European leaders to appoint a eurozone finance minister as a way to ensure the single currency's long-term viability. But would it work, and, more fundamentally, is it necessary?

The US decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel comes in defiance of overwhelming global opposition. The message is clear: the Trump administration is determined to dictate the Israeli version of peace with the Palestinians, rather than to mediate an equitable agreement between the two sides.